Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[Foreigner]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

If you believe in the potential deification of man based on the Bible alone and are not a Mormon, then I stand corrected.  You may not consider it strange, but I would still consider it unusual. 

You are a foreigner in a strange (peculiar) land indeed 

I had no intent to shed light on my humble person.

I have pointed to a Mormon author (as proud of his Mormon heritage as you) who wrote in a book about deification, showing that this idea was common among first Christians, who based on Bible surely. His point was, that today Christians who departed from their origins, should not accuse Mormons that they do not deserve to be called Christians. And you suggested that Mormonism discovered the idea as something new. Clearly, one of you is uninformed.

And I do not profess any doctrine of deification. I just take Scriptures seriously, not any heritage.

Yes, I am Foreigner on this board as well as this world. But do not worry about me. I stay with good company.

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

I have pointed to a Mormon author (as proud of his Mormon heritage as you) who wrote in a book about deification, showing that this idea was common among first Christians, who based on Bible surely. His point was, that today Christians who departed from their origins, should not accuse Mormons that they do not deserve to be called Christians. And you suggested that Mormonism discovered the idea as something new. Clearly, one of you is uninformed.

I am familiar with early Christian teachings about deification as pointed out in this article I linked to previously https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

I never claimed that Joseph "discovered the idea as something new", I simply claimed that the idea was revealed to him.  Deification lost prominence by the 6th century partly due to new teachings of creation ex-nihilo. 

[bluebell]

On 1/7/2017 at 8:52 PM, sjdawg said:

I think Mormonism kind of ruins others religions for you.   You grow up with a belief that there is only one true Church in the world.  If you decide that Mormonism isn't true it is tough to find a reason to believe that another Church suddenly has the full truth.

I think that's true, but more than that, it's the teaching the church has about the necessity of personal revelation that does people in.  Most people who are active members sincerely believe that God has told them that this is His church, that JS was a prophet, etc.

So, if they lose that testimony, it doesn't just affect the truth claims of the LDS church.  It affects their faith in God's ability to reveal all truth, including truth about Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the existence of God Himself. 

If you thought that God told you the BOM was His word and you were wrong, then how solid is the foundation supporting your belief that God told you that Jesus is the Christ?

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So I guess Christ was wrong -- with God all things really aren't possible.

Can God sin?  It doesn't mean that God's going to give you anything you believe. You can't just believe that God's going to give you a brand new Rolls Royce. That's not what he's saying. As a believer one chooses things in accordance with God's will. Those things make a believer one with God.

Edited January 10, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

...according to the gospel of LittleNipper.

I truly do understand where you are coming from.  I would probably be saying the same thing from your perspective.

Remarkable isn't it!  Quite miraculous in fact.  I will state this however, Joseph Smith was not alone in receiving many of these revelations, including one on deification which both he and Sydney Rigdom were whitnesses to.  There were always whitnesses to everything. I don't know how old you are LittleNipper, but ask yourself (assuming that you are at least 38), what had you accomplished by the time you were 38?  Could you stick your head in a hat and dictate a book of scripture with the scope of the Book of Mormon without skipping a beat or messing up names, dates, places, doctrines, etc. with no script and no rough draft?  Add to that the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants.  He took on the monumental task of translating the Bible and has volumes of other writings not included in scripture. He had published 3 books of scripture to the convincing of millions and founded one of the most successful proselyting churches of our time which would fill the entire world. If that was not enough, he was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, proposing a remarkable platform that offered solutions to “the slave problem,” championed the elimination of imprisonment for debt, made recommendations for a national bank, and suggested the annexation of Texas, Mexico, and Canada to the United States. He founded the city of Nauvoo, helping to author its charter and supervise its growth in the early 1840s into one of the largest cities in Illinois. He served as one of Nauvoo’s mayors, judges, and aldermen. He commanded its armed militia, the Nauvoo Legion, that at its peak was a force of about 3,000 men, and, in addition to all this, he oversaw the construction of two major temples.  All this with only 3 years of formal schooling.

Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/06/joseph-smith-prophet-of-the-restoration?lang=eng

I couldn't have said it any better myself..."unprecedented" indeed!

LittleNipper, my greatest desire is to "know God", because as Joseph Smith so eloquently stated, “if men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves.”

 

There is no saying that Mr. Joseph Smith was not a genius. And if anyone applies himself he can achieve many things -- remember there were few diversions in the 1800's.  But also ask yourself who benefited the most --- Mr. Smith or his followers?   I find the history surrounding Hitler very fascinating. He literally went from a nobody to one of the most influential of men and the leader of a great and powerful nation. But was he assisted by God or some other power. Did Mr. Smith find the one true church or simply add confusion to the growing pile. And who is the author of confusion? There are certainly other ways to look at this. 

Do you view GOD through Christ and His Word or through the inspiration of Joseph Smith?

Jesus said, "What value is it if an individual gains everything the world has to offer, but loses his own soul?"

Edited January 10, 2017 by LittleNipper

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

To me the biggest question is: why wouldn't God want his sons and daughters to be just as happy and full of light as he is?

Exactly- that is what parents want for their children, but this god they worship cannot be our father because he is an ineffable cloud of spirit who cannot change or interact with humanity who are made of base matter while he is pure "spirit" and does not share any part of his "nature" with these carnal fallen creatures he created who are not really "children" at all, but creations on the same level as animals.  

See how this relates to the earlier discussion?

THIS is apostate Neoplatonism in action- spirit divided from base matter while we believe that spirit IS matter, just "more refined"

Pagan Neoplatonism teaches all this which we see represented right here in this discussion with the antidote also represented by the LDS side.  The Greeks made up all this transcendent god stuff starting with Pythagoras- yes the triangle guy- who started worshiping perfect "Forms"- like the abstract triangle which was perfect and beyond man's imperfection.

This got carried into Christianity through first Plato and then Plotinus and others and was firmly established in the idea of "substance" as in "consubstantial" or "homoousia".   Think of a cookie cutter and raw dough.   The cookie cutter is the "Form" and the dough is the "substance".  In Neoplatonism the cookie dough is substance and there are different substances- man is one kind of substance, god is another (small letters deliberately used for false gods)

The trinity gets explained saying that there are three people made of the same cookie dough- "substance" or "homoousia".  THEIR cookie dough is godly cookie dough and man's substance or cookie dough is debased material cookie dough while godly cookie dough is spirit and transcendent.

Jesus has two "natures" and two cookie doughs- manly base cookie dough and godly spiritual cookie dough.

But remember the cookie cutter?   That is the "form" or appearance that the cookie dough takes on.   In "transubstantiation" the cookie cutter doesn't change- the appearance of the bread stays - but guess what- the substance- the cookie dough changes from bread substance to divine substance.

Pretty cool huh?

So this is where all this comes from- man is debased matter and created as were animals whereas god is not like that but pure spirit.   Matter could never be spirit.

Restored truth- ie vocabularies-  turns this on its head- and at its very foundation is not like apostate Christianity- though stupidly we often still use their words for God because we do not know better for the most part.  We still speak of "omnipotence" and the other omnis because we do not understand the source of the words.  Yes God has power to do anything he wants to do and he does not want to contradict his purpose. THAT is "omnipotence" but when we say "God can do all things" as if doing ACTIONS is a "thing".

So we think up self-contradicting actions as our friend here has done and says there are actions God "cannot" do when in fact it is just that the action would contradict His purpose so of course he does not do them.   He says "God cannot sin" when obviously that is false or the temptations of Christ would not have been temptations.   God DOES NOT sin because he chooses not to contradict his own purposes.

On the other hand we go on diets and then cheat- contradicting our own purposes all the time.  THAT is what "sin" is to me- when our actions are out of synch with what you "really want".   It is not because we are carnal and debased- most often it is because we are not thinking clearly.   That is often when the passions cloud what we know we should do.  But that does not make the passions "bad"- they serve their purposes, we just get mixed up because we have agency. 

The restoration turns the very philosophy of apostate Christianity on its head!

Spirit and matter are one!  God is spirit AND matter- and so are we- the distinction between spirit and matter should not even exist- because WE ARE all made of matter some of which is "more refined" than other types of matter but it is all matter

God is literally our Father of our spirits which are at their base Eternal.   We are not "created" - We are organized spirit matter - pure intelligence matter mixed with more physical matter.   Of course now with E=mc2 we know that matter and energy are interchangeable - and my personal believe is that spirit is some kind of energy using scientific language instead of "refined matter" though both terms speak of the same phenomenon.

Traditional Christians keep these pagan designations in their language so they end up speaking as this guy does- while our vocabulary is different.   I would like to see it "more different" but.... one thing at a time!

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that's true, but more than that, it's the teaching the church has about the necessity of personal revelation that does people in.  Most people who are active members sincerely believe that God has told them that this is His church, that JS was a prophet, etc.

So, if they lose that testimony, it doesn't just affect the truth claims of the LDS church.  It affects their faith in God's ability to reveal all truth, including truth about Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the existence of God Himself. 

If you thought that God told you the BOM was His word and you were wrong, then how solid is the foundation supporting your belief that God told you that Jesus is the Christ?

Insightful.  And true, IMO.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

There is no saying that Mr. Joseph Smith was not a genius.

Do geniuses share revelations and visions with other witnesses?

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

But also ask yourself who benefited the most --- Mr. Smith or his followers?  

Read D&C 121 and tell me if that sounds like someone who did all this for himself.

His followers were not tarred and feathered. According to recorded accounts of the event, "the mob broke down the front door, took Smith's oldest surviving adopted child from his arms, dragged Smith from the room, leaving his exposed child on a trundle bed and forcing Emma and the others from the house, the mob threatening her with rape and murder. The child was knocked off the bed onto the floor in the doorway of the home as Smith was forcibly removed from his home. The child died from exposure (many accounts say pneumonia) five days after the event from the condition that doctors said he developed the night of the mob violence."  He was falsely accused, driven from place to place, imprisoned, and murdered in cold blood, so...you tell me, who benefited more?

If you are talking about spiritual benefits, that is impossible to judge, but I can testify of the immeasurable consequence for good that Joseph Smith has had on my personal relationship with God.  It truly is unspeakable. 

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you view GOD through Christ and His Word or through the inspiration of Joseph Smith?

I also pray to him directly as I already mentioned.  I read his word in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Are prophets not the oracles of God? Or do you dismiss the Old Testament and all scripture other than Christ's words in the gospel's?

Edited January 10, 2017 by pogi

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that's true, but more than that, it's the teaching the church has about the necessity of personal revelation that does people in.  Most people who are active members sincerely believe that God has told them that this is His church, that JS was a prophet, etc.

So, if they lose that testimony, it doesn't just affect the truth claims of the LDS church.  It affects their faith in God's ability to reveal all truth, including truth about Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the existence of God Himself. 

If you thought that God told you the BOM was His word and you were wrong, then how solid is the foundation supporting your belief that God told you that Jesus is the Christ?

Something, what can help, is that the real world is analog rather than digital (excuse me for reference to electronics).

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that's true, but more than that, it's the teaching the church has about the necessity of personal revelation that does people in.  Most people who are active members sincerely believe that God has told them that this is His church, that JS was a prophet, etc.

So, if they lose that testimony, it doesn't just affect the truth claims of the LDS church.  It affects their faith in God's ability to reveal all truth, including truth about Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the existence of God Himself. 

If you thought that God told you the BOM was His word and you were wrong, then how solid is the foundation supporting your belief that God told you that Jesus is the Christ?

You are right...it changes everything.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly- that is what parents want for their children, but this god they worship cannot be our father because he is an ineffable cloud of spirit who cannot change or interact with humanity who are made of base matter while he is pure "spirit" and does not share any part of his "nature" with these carnal fallen creatures he created who are not really "children" at all, but creations on the same level as animals.  

See how this relates to the earlier discussion?

THIS is apostate Neoplatonism in action- spirit divided from base matter while we believe that spirit IS matter, just "more refined"

Pagan Neoplatonism teaches all this which we see represented right here in this discussion with the antidote also represented by the LDS side.  The Greeks made up all this transcendent god stuff starting with Pythagoras- yes the triangle guy- who started worshiping perfect "Forms"- like the abstract triangle which was perfect and beyond man's imperfection.

This got carried into Christianity through first Plato and then Plotinus and others and was firmly established in the idea of "substance" as in "consubstantial" or "homoousia".   Think of a cookie cutter and raw dough.   The cookie cutter is the "Form" and the dough is the "substance".  In Neoplatonism the cookie dough is substance and there are different substances- man is one kind of substance, god is another (small letters deliberately used for false gods)

The trinity gets explained saying that there are three people made of the same cookie dough- "substance" or "homoousia".  THEIR cookie dough is godly cookie dough and man's substance or cookie dough is debased material cookie dough while godly cookie dough is spirit and transcendent.

Jesus has two "natures" and two cookie doughs- manly base cookie dough and godly spiritual cookie dough.

But remember the cookie cutter?   That is the "form" or appearance that the cookie dough takes on.   In "transubstantiation" the cookie cutter doesn't change- the appearance of the bread stays - but guess what- the substance- the cookie dough changes from bread substance to divine substance.

Pretty cool huh?

So this is where all this comes from- man is debased matter and created as were animals whereas god is not like that but pure spirit.   Matter could never be spirit.

Restored truth- ie vocabularies-  turns this on its head- and at its very foundation is not like apostate Christianity- though stupidly we often still use their words for God because we do not know better for the most part.  We still speak of "omnipotence" and the other omnis because we do not understand the source of the words.  Yes God has power to do anything he wants to do and he does not want to contradict his purpose. THAT is "omnipotence" but when we say "God can do all things" as if doing ACTIONS is a "thing".

So we think up self-contradicting actions as our friend here has done and says there are actions God "cannot" do when in fact it is just that the action would contradict His purpose so of course he does not do them.   He says "God cannot sin" when obviously that is false or the temptations of Christ would not have been temptations.   God DOES NOT sin because he chooses not to contradict his own purposes.

On the other hand we go on diets and then cheat- contradicting our own purposes all the time.  THAT is what "sin" is to me- when our actions are out of synch with what you "really want".   It is not because we are carnal and debased- most often it is because we are not thinking clearly.   That is often when the passions cloud what we know we should do.  But that does not make the passions "bad"- they serve their purposes, we just get mixed up because we have agency. 

The restoration turns the very philosophy of apostate Christianity on its head!

Spirit and matter are one!  God is spirit AND matter- and so are we- the distinction between spirit and matter should not even exist- because WE ARE all made of matter some of which is "more refined" than other types of matter but it is all matter

God is literally our Father of our spirits which are at their base Eternal.   We are not "created" - We are organized spirit matter - pure intelligence matter mixed with more physical matter.   Of course now with E=mc2 we know that matter and energy are interchangeable - and my personal believe is that spirit is some kind of energy using scientific language instead of "refined matter" though both terms speak of the same phenomenon.

Traditional Christians keep these pagan designations in their language so they end up speaking as this guy does- while our vocabulary is different.   I would like to see it "more different" but.... one thing at a time!

 

Thanks for this very good explanation! 

From the Christian Platonist point of view, how can the Godhead be immaterial and yet be composed of a substance? 

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Can God sin?  It doesn't mean that God's going to give you anything you believe. You can't just believe that God's going to give you a brand new Rolls Royce. That's not what he's saying. As a believer one chooses things in accordance with God's will. Those things make a believer one with God.

I'm well-aware of the qualifier. I was referring only to things that are in harmony with the will of God. For example, the  Savior commanded his people to, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your fFather which is in heaven is perfect." So why would the Lord command his followers to be perfect, in the same way our Father in Heaven is perfect, but then hold those he commanded back from fulfilling the commandment to become perfect like the Father? 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

There is no saying that Mr. Joseph Smith was not a genius. And if anyone applies himself he can achieve many things -- remember there were few diversions in the 1800's.  But also ask yourself who benefited the most --- Mr. Smith or his followers?   I find the history surrounding Hitler very fascinating. He literally went from a nobody to one of the most influential of men and the leader of a great and powerful nation. But was he assisted by God or some other power. Did Mr. Smith find the one true church or simply add confusion to the growing pile. And who is the author of confusion? There are certainly other ways to look at this. 

Do you view GOD through Christ and His Word or through the inspiration of Joseph Smith?

Jesus said, "What value is it if an individual gains everything the world has to offer, but loses his own soul?"

I think Joseph Smith added a different path back to God.  People who join the Mormon church love what the church has to offer.  Sometimes they were completely without any religion at all.  They found a community that embraces them and cares for their needs and leads them back to God.  Is that such a bad thing?  

I think God cares more about a person's change of heart than how that change happened.  

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Do geniuses share revelations and visions with other witnesses?

Read D&C 121 and tell me if that sounds like someone who did all this for himself.

His followers were not tarred and feathered. According to recorded accounts of the event, "the mob broke down the front door, took Smith's oldest surviving adopted child from his arms, dragged Smith from the room, leaving his exposed child on a trundle bed and forcing Emma and the others from the house, the mob threatening her with rape and murder. The child was knocked off the bed onto the floor in the doorway of the home as Smith was forcibly removed from his home. The child died from exposure (many accounts say pneumonia) five days after the event from the condition that doctors said he developed the night of the mob violence."  He was falsely accused, driven from place to place, imprisoned, and murdered in cold blood, so...you tell me, who benefited more?

If you are talking about spiritual benefits, that is impossible to judge, but I can testify of the immeasurable consequence for good that Joseph Smith has had on my personal relationship with God.  It truly is unspeakable. 

I also pray to him directly as I already mentioned.  I read his word in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Are prophets not the oracles of God? Or do you dismiss the Old Testament and all scripture other than Christ's words in the gospel's?

Friends and family members most certainly they do.The Bible clearly say that a "prophet" who gives false prophecy is not a prophet. I'm sorry for what happened to the child, but bigamy and adultery were not acceptable in most communities --- unlike in ancient Rome and today. A person does not have to ever hear of Joseph Smith to have an excellent Father and son like relationship with the Lord.  

[LittleNipper]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think Joseph Smith added a different path back to God.  People who join the Mormon church love what the church has to offer.  Sometimes they were completely without any religion at all.  They found a community that embraces them and cares for their needs and leads them back to God.  Is that such a bad thing?  

I think God cares more about a person's change of heart than how that change happened.  

A Christian Community can be a wonderful thing. One doesn't have to be a Mormon to be Amish.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Thanks for this very good explanation! 

From the Christian Platonist point of view, how can the Godhead be immaterial and yet be composed of a substance? 

 

 

Silly- that is VERY simple!

Why it's IMMATERIAL SUBSTANCE!

And you couldn't figure that out for yourself?

Seriously different philosophers had different versions of these theories- what I presented was kind of a conglomeration of Plato, Aristotle and Descartes.

Descartes has been most influential on the modern world and in fact the correspondence theory of truth - as we hear it today- we discussed earlier derives largely from him.  Somehow immaterial mind from our perceptions is supposed to "correspond" to "reality" which is material.  So the immaterial "idea" that "the cat is on the mat"- immaterial because ideas are in our minds- and are "appearances" - supposedly correspond to the material reality that the cat is in fact on the mat.   Sounds good until you start thinking about it- the problem is how do we get out of our minds- immaterial ideas- to check that "material reality" against what appears to us in immaterial appearances

Again, what I presented was a conglomeration of different views of how this is all supposed to work- if you want to slice and dice the nuances- here are some sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Friends and family members most certainly they do.The Bible clearly say that a "prophet" who gives false prophecy is not a prophet. I'm sorry for what happened to the child, but bigamy and adultery were not acceptable in most communities --- unlike in ancient Rome and today. A person does not have to ever hear of Joseph Smith to have an excellent Father and son like relationship with the Lord.  

Well then that does in the Bible

No rapture, no second coming, no lotsa stuff.  All this was to happen in the same generation.   Didn't happen, therefore by your logic, the bible was written by false prophets.

That would be Isaiah, Daniel, the New Testament etc etc.   OOPS!

And no one says you have to be a Mormon to have an excellent relationship with God

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Subjective and personal can't be intellectual? As in, not purely emotional, but issues based?

 

Too vague- I have no clue what you mean

[Teancum]

On 1/9/2017 at 10:41 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

In other words, that nothing in his claims could compel belief. They do indeed sound fantastical. In my experience -- and Joseph's, apparently! -- they only start to sound less so when we personally have analogous experiences.

In the beginning, nothing conclusive. The narratives are important because they invite a person to explore the truth claims attached to them. This is true of all stories, by the way, and not just Latter-day Saint ones. Trying to determine if something that exists and can be experienced in the present is real based on incomplete and necessarily secondhand stories from the past is a fool's errand.

Personal revelation and personal experience. That's what the original apostles had to go on: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven'.

That's what those who listened to their witnesses had to go on: 'Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost'.

It's what Joseph the Seer had to go on: 'If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself'.

And that's what those who listen to Joseph's witness still have to go on.

Anyone who either believes or disbelieves religious truth claims because of 'history' misunderstands both history as a discipline and how God has operated from the beginning of time.

How do you know how God has operated from the beginning of time if historical accounts are useless in determining such things.  After all this is what you at least initially have to start with.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you know how God has operated from the beginning of time if historical accounts are useless in determining such things.

Because God in the present teaches us how truth can be known and tells us that this has always been His way.

[Johnny Ghost]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you know how God has operated from the beginning of time if historical accounts are useless in determining such things.  After all this is what you at least initially have to start with.

History is what the church sells to the world - JS did this, he translated that, he had this experience and so can you.  If it is useless, then why bother retelling anything about JS and his restoration that supposedly doesn't matter?  Why not just go directly to attributing any good feeling to the church being true?

[Johnny Ghost]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because God in the present teaches us how truth can be known and tells us that this has always been His way.

Can you explain this to me without the circular reasoning?  Is that possible?

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Ghost said:

History is what the church sells to the world - JS did this, he translated that, he had this experience and so can you.  If it is useless, then why bother retelling anything about JS and his restoration that supposedly doesn't matter?  Why not just go directly to attributing any good feeling to the church being true?

Until two months ago, I was a university academic. Several times a week we would be invited to research seminars wherein various academics (including PhD students) would report on things they had done, all of it necessarily in the past. For such research reports to be valid, however, they would need to be replicable. This is precisely why reputable academic writing is carefully referenced. I have to be able to retrace the earlier research, not just to check up on it, though it certainly empowers me to do so, but so that I can follow any leads that may assist me in my own research.

We tell stories in the Church for the exact same reasons, whether it's a story about the early Saints or the testimony I share about what happened to me last week. Hearing stories encourages sincerely interested listeners to consider the experience and then invites them to replicate the research and follow the leads in their own explorations. The stories are certainly not useless, but their lasting impact really only comes from the personal experience of replicating them.

[Bobbieaware]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Silly- that is VERY simple!

Why it's IMMATERIAL SUBSTANCE!

And you couldn't figure that out for yourself?

Seriously different philosophers had different versions of these theories- what I presented was kind of a conglomeration of Plato, Aristotle and Descartes.

Descartes has been most influential on the modern world and in fact the correspondence theory of truth - as we hear it today- we discussed earlier derives largely from him.  Somehow immaterial mind from our perceptions is supposed to "correspond" to "reality" which is material.  So the immaterial "idea" that "the cat is on the mat"- immaterial because ideas are in our minds- and are "appearances" - supposedly correspond to the material reality that the cat is in fact on the mat.   Sounds good until you start thinking about it- the problem is how do we get out of our minds- immaterial ideas- to check that "material reality" against what appears to us in immaterial appearances

Again, what I presented was a conglomeration of different views of how this is all supposed to work- if you want to slice and dice the nuances- here are some sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

The problem is so-called immaterial ideas cannot, in reality, exist anywhere except within the mind (they don't independently float around somewhere in space outside of the mind). A human mind might imagine or visualize that laws, concepts and ideas float around somewhere outside of the mind, but such visualizations are actually manifestations of very real chemical and electrical (E=mc2) activities that flow, flash and streak within the material brain; that means imagination is wholly a material phenomenon. And the same can be said for the processes that go on within the mind of our spirits, for spirit is also a form of matter and energy.

 

[Johnny Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Until two months ago, I was a university academic. Several times a week we would be invited to research seminars wherein various academics (including PhD students) would report on things they had done, all of it necessarily in the past. For such research reports to be valid, however, they would need to be replicable. This is precisely why reputable academic writing is carefully referenced. I have to be able to retrace the earlier research, not just to check up on it, though it certainly empowers me to do so, but so that I can follow any leads that may assist me in my own research.

We tell stories in the Church for the exact same reasons, whether it's a story about the early Saints or the testimony I share about what happened to me last week. Hearing stories encourages sincerely interested listeners to consider the experience and then invites them to replicate the research and follow the leads in their own explorations. The stories are certainly not useless, but their lasting impact really only comes from the personal experience of replicating them.

What if deception is involved and through deception, one is invited to experience the spiritual experience that everyone raves about? Is deception a valid means to the spiritual ends?  I would guess that you would say yes because the result is all that matters?